Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Gixx1300R]

The point I was trying to make is I don’t class the old tech as completely flawed tech. Not all old tech batteries have been capped. Only a very few. So the majority of old tech batteries continue to operate as designed (for the moment). But I do agree, of the batteries affected, they all contain the old tech cells. I also agree getting a refurbished old tech pack is no guarantee. But if the % of old tech cars affected is a small %, 10%? 15%? (I don’t know the figure so I am just wet finger in the air speculating here) but if they are in that ball park range, then surely that suggests that a refurbished pack has a 85%-90% chance of being just fine.

Whether Tesla even has a supply of old tech batteries is a different issue. I don’t have the answer. I doubt for instance they have a supply of the pre Silicon cells, although the newer silicon cells also had their own problems and when I questioned a Ranger about them his impression was they were not as good as the old Gen 1 cells. Also if Tesla now only have 100 kWh batteries, that is not a solution for us, as they are not a straight swap item. So I agree they may have to build from new. Perhaps that is why they are wriggling so hard?

FYI- I was not capped until 2019.36 and even more so with 2019.40 so every old pack may no be effected but it seems Tesla is taking the nuclear option and is slowly nerfing all old packs.

 

[Lukez]

It literally gets worse and worse. The recent software significantly reduced regen power when the battery is cold. I did some data logging before and after the recent software update (2019.40.x). Very noticeable in normal driving and the data shows it clearly as well.
For the last 4 years my car has been crippled, reduced and downgraded with every software update. This is unprecedented in the car industry. How on earth Tesla thinks they can just mess with our cars this way.
View attachment 492205

Which data point did you use for the regen limit on smt? Is it the bms max charge?

 

[Todd Burch]

That is the proper procedure for filing a complaint with the NHTSB.

The NHTSA site is for filing safety complaints. Batterygate/Chargegate are not safety issues. They are consumer rights complaints and issues much more appropriate for a class action lawsuit as is currently in-progress. Charging slowly and losing range do not put you or anyone else in danger.

 

[Todd Burch]

How would you know? The whole capping is the result of fire incidents.

If you were posting complaints about the fires, I’d agree with you. Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes.

What people are complaining about is the consequence of that rectified safety issue—the disappointment that range, charging speed, and regen has been capped. That’s not a safety issue.

 

[Gixx1300R]

The NHTSA site is for filing safety complaints. Batterygate/Chargegate are not safety issues. They are consumer rights complaints and issues much more appropriate for a class action lawsuit as is currently in-progress. Charging slowly and losing range do not put you or anyone else in danger.

Batterygate/Chargegate is a direct result of potential fires from quick charging or bad battery chemistry, those bad battery packs still remain in the cars that are driven. At first it was range that was effected, It has slowly encompassed more functions of the car such as charging speed and now regen. The negative effects are getting worse which means more bad data may be showing in the BMS that further throttling is charging may be needed. Now 60KWH regen has been reduced., seems like any high powered charging may cause a fire which is why the extreme reduction is kwh charging and that is a safety issue and that is why you file a complaint. If you don't think it is an issue, don't file, pretty simple.

 

[Chaserr]

That is the proper procedure for filing a complaint with the NHTSB.

And Tesla is required to report all customer complaints to the NHTSA - they didn't report the fires or the capping and didn't report our complaints either. Mercedes was JUST fined and put on safety probation for similar problems (without the capping).

If you were posting complaints about the fires, I’d agree with you. Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes.

What people are complaining about is the consequence of that rectified safety issue—the disappointment that range, charging speed, and regen has been capped. That’s not a safety issue.

Tesla addressed NOTHING with the BMS changes. They probably conealed something but nothing has been addressed. They have to report it to the NHTSA in order for the problem to be addressed. Even if it's just a single complaint with no action needed, they have to report it to the NHTSA - they took action to illegally cap thousands of cars and still didn't report it. We are all still driving cars with an unaddressed safety problem right now.

I recently linked an NHTSA investigation reswult against Mercedes recently that touches on what Tesla did (not as bad, but Mercedes was fined for not reporting complaints or things they investigated to the NHTSA). That shows what they will fine over even when there is no safety recall that needs to be done, just reports from customers that have concerns. We want Tesla to be on probation like Mercedes so the company takes our fire safety concerns seriously and actually addresses them. If they were addressed, we would all have officially stamped NHTSA approved physical mail explaining the problem with instructions on when and how our cars will be repaired from the damages that the temporary capping measures taken were emergency instituted in order to save lives while permanent measures were planned. They can't legally downgrade and just forget - that is a serious problem for everyone involved.

 

[DJRas]

If you were posting complaints about the fires, I’d agree with you. Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes.

What people are complaining about is the consequence of that rectified safety issue—the disappointment that range, charging speed, and regen has been capped. That’s not a safety issue.

The problem with Tesla's "rectified safety issue" is that it was never reported as a safety issue as required by law. NHTSA would then investigate. Any related fix would be evaluated by an independent 3rd party for safety and effectiveness.

None of that has happened.
Tesla's "fix" MIGHT be a fix (with consumer losing capabilities that they paid thousands for). Then again, it might only be an attempt to delay and disguise battery failures until after the warranty period.
The absence of fires after the updates (only one known) does not mean tge fire problem is fixed.

 

[DJRas]

As a new data point.
I charged at home HPWC 10kW to 100% successfully (221 miles). The tapering started at 95%. It took one hour to go from 95% to 100%. Active cooling pumps are running now.

 

[Droschke]

Do you mean literally continuously as 24/7?

Is there any point then to charge to high Soc, if car then depletes it by cooling? What is the limit for this continuous cooling?

I supercharged yesterday from 40% to 90%, and when done, the pump ran for 5 hours while the car was parked and plugged in. Lost 1 mile per hour by the pump running off of the HV battery. The outside temperature of about 50F.

 

[VT_EE]

I supercharged yesterday from 40% to 90%, and when done, the pump ran for 5 hours while the car was parked and plugged in. Lost 1 mile per hour by the pump running off of the HV battery. The outside temperature of about 50F.

Insane. If that is their solution to mitigate whatever is going on, a new battery should definitely be in order. As you know, I give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, but this is really getting crazy. Do you know if the compressor is also running? This kind of usage will drastically reduce its life.

 

[Droschke]

... I find it risks being misunderstood to say Capping is a result of fires as the inference is capping has been done to avoid fires. That is not a view I have ever held.

The capping was done to avoid more fires after the Shanghai fire incident. The inference is correct:

"The company has revised the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air (OTA) software update, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity, the statement said."

Tesla says single battery module caused car fire in Shanghai, has changed vehicle settings

 

[Droschke]

If you were posting complaints about the fires, I’d agree with you. Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes.

Yes, the complaints would be about the fires. You think the "Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes" unilaterally would be sufficient or they need to report it to the NHTSA for approval?

 

[Droschke]

View attachment 492418 As a new data point.
I charged at home HPWC 10kW to 100% successfully (221 miles). The tapering started at 95%. It took one hour to go from 95% to 100%. Active cooling pumps are running now.

This is the first time after capping you can charge to 100%, right? Also let us know how long the pump runs and how many miles of range wasted. Thanks.

 

[Droschke]

Insane. If that is their solution to mitigate whatever is going on, a new battery should definitely be in order. As you know, I give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, but this is really getting crazy. Do you know if the compressor is also running? This kind of usage will drastically reduce its life.

If by compressor you mean the AC compressor, all I can say is no cold air is being vented inside the cabin. Would it wear out the pumps (there is more than one cooling pump) prematurely? I would think so.

The faint humming noise is very familiar to me. Look at my post#7 in this thread. Also, a separate thread on this issue I started back in mid-may (when capping was being implemented) and when I did not know what the heck was happening.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

The capping was done to avoid more fires after the Shanghai fire incident. The inference is correct:

"The company has revised the charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air (OTA) software update, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity, the statement said."

Tesla says single battery module caused car fire in Shanghai, has changed vehicle settings

That’s fine. It’s a view you hold, legitimately. As I said it’s not one I held and that article does nothing to change my mind. I agree there is a link in the process. But I’m struggling to see how capping a battery by 10 kWh reduces the fire risk. It has been established that the primary cause of spontaneous EV fires is Dendrites. Reducing capacity doesn't reduce the likelihood of Dendrites. It does reduce the early wearing out of batteries, which is what I have always said I thought Condition Z was. I remember Jason saying they went looking for them, didn’t find them, but found something completely different. So, as always, I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t arrive at the same conclusion. We are allowed to disagree.

 

[First EV]

I will again mention the effect this will likely have on resale value. Who would buy one of these cars now knowing that:
Updates are forced
Updates reduce functionality
Warranty is basically worthless since they just deny any issue as normal
Range could be reduced anytime so paying more for a car with more range could have much less range and value tomorrow
Virtually no access to diagnostics or aftermarket service and repair vs traditional ice cars
Unknown price for replacement 85 batteries, we know they want $11k for a refurbished 60 battery
Screens and emmc chips all near end of life and will be out of pocket.
Ever slower charging speed

It seems the positive confidence that sold me on the car and the company and gave me the confidence to make the most expensive car purchase I had ever made is gone. All that seems left is the previous Tesla issues, plus more now, that I use to accept because they made up for it with an ever improving car with ota updates and excellent service from a company I could trust.
Now it's one size fits all online only service requests and they refuse to actually talk to customers.

What I really love is the Kool aid my coworker drinks who bought two model 3s and justifys Tesla's response with the world can't go carbon free over night as he is still sold on "the mission". He was surprised I didn't buy another Tesla when mine was totaled. He tried to claim that his 3s would be an appreciating asset that don't wear out like an ice car especially when they crack FSD.

 

[Chaserr]

That’s fine. It’s a view you hold, legitimately. As I said it’s not one I held and that article does nothing to change my mind. I agree there is a link in the process. But I’m struggling to see how capping a battery by 10 kWh reduces the fire risk. It has been established that the primary cause of spontaneous EV fires is Dendrites. Reducing capacity doesn't reduce the likelihood of Dendrites. It does reduce the early wearing out of batteries, which is what I have always said I thought Condition Z was. I remember Jason saying they went looking for them, didn’t find them, but found something completely different. So, as always, I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t arrive at the same conclusion. We are allowed to disagree.

If that doesn't change your mind how about Tesla's official statement they released along with 2019.16 that said they were implementing BMS and thermal changes specifically to address fires:

Tesla to update battery software following car fires

"We currently have well over half a million vehicles on the road, which is more than double the number that we had at the beginning of last year, and Tesla's team of battery experts uses that data to thoroughly investigate incidents that occur and understand the root cause. Although fire incidents involving Tesla vehicles are already extremely rare and our cars are 10 times less likely to experience a fire than a gas car, we believe the right number of incidents to aspire to is zero.

As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity."

That statement was in regards to their "abundance of caution" over the fires and the BMS and thermal changes they made are batterygate and chargegate. The update "that will begin rolling out today" was 2019.16. There is no doubt everything points back to the fires, Tesla themselves told us so before a single car had been capped.

I agree with your disagreement but it has always been clear as day to me. Tesla telegraphed the capping before they released 2019.16 and their statement said they were changing BMS (capping) and thermal (chargegate tec) settings in direct response to fires "out of an abundance of caution" stemming from their direct investigation into those incidents. That statement explained why they did it, before they did it. They themselves say the changes were made in response to their internal investigation into the root cause of a series of fires.

 

[Droschke]

But I’m struggling to see how capping a battery by 10 kWh reduces the fire risk.

I thought this has already been established.

You lost 10kWh by voltage capping of your pack. If your charging voltage is increased beyond the safe upper cell voltage of your pack (especially if your pack has faulty cells), you have two problems: 1) Lithium Plating and, 2) Overheating. The overheating is a fire risk.

 

[Chaserr]

If you look at the loss of capacity and horsepower as a side effect it makes more sense. Every "negative" update thing since 2019 seems to be aimed at decreasing the amount of energy inside the battery. VOltage (actual energy storage) is decreased. Supercharging is decreased. Regen is decreased. Battery preheating is disabled. Cooling runs 24/7 until the pack is under 60% (that is probably their ideal capping target if they can get away with it).

I don't think Tesla ever wanted to decrease capacity, power, charging, etc. They wanted to decrease the amount of energy inside the pack to decrease the fire risk they told us about when they rolled out 2019.16 and whatever other risks they aren't disclosing. Whatever the risk may be, it is serious enough for them to risk the side effects we have all complained about.

 

[BigNick]

He tried to claim that his 3s would be an appreciating asset that don't wear out like an ice car especially when they crack FSD.

Maybe if it were a highly limited production Italian exotic like a Ferrari 250 GTO. Not a 1000-units-per-day EV.